Public Meeting Notice  BBRS Climate Resiliency Subcommittee Meeting - 4.10.26

Climate Resiliency Committee Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes – BBRS Climate Resiliency Committee

In accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 30A § 20, the Board of Building Regulations and Standards Climate Resiliency Committee convened a regular monthly meeting on: 

Microsoft Teams Meeting April 10, 2026 

The topics shown below were discussed at the aforementioned meeting: 9:32 AM Chair Mia Mansfield called the open meeting to order. 

Informational note: All votes were taken by roll call. Where each member voted in favor, the vote will be reported as unanimous.

Board Members Present

• Mia Mansfield, EEA
• Rebecca Haney, EEA
• Annie Howard, Building Official
• Jaclyn Kinson, Engineer
• Katie Moniz, Engineer
• Elsa Mullin, Developer
• Ross Seavey, DOL

Board Members Absent

• Dawn Guariello, Architect
• Mark LaLumiere, Building Official

DOL Staff Present

• Tammy Gropman, Executive Director
• Charles Kilb, Senior Board Counsel
• Andrew Chase, Associate Executive Director

Acknowledged Public Attendees

• Sarah Alexander, EEA
• Joy Duperault, DCR
• Eric Carlson, DCR

1. ReviewedFebruary 27, 2026, meeting minutes.
   1. Chair Mansfield introduced topic of February 27, 2026, meeting minutes. Elsa Mullin motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Annie Howard. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Review, Discuss, Vote - Code Proposals
   1. Design Flood Elevation and Base Flood Elevation Proposal
      1. Chair Mansfield introduced Design Flood Elevation and Base Flood Elevation Proposal. Members discussed the proposal to clarify terminology related to flood elevations, specifically the relationship between Design Flood and Base Flood. 
      2. Members discussed inconsistent terminology between sections of the IRC and Massachusetts amendments and noted potential confusion for designers and enforcement officials. Members discussed the need to standardize language, and potentially replacing references to “design flood elevation” with “required elevation” where appropriate to align with Massachusetts practice.
   2. Coastal Dunes Proposal (Sarah Alexander, EEA)
      1. Sarah Alexander outlined the coastal dunes proposal, noting that erodible environments leave structures vulnerable to erosion, collapse, and storm damage. She noted that national standards, including ASCE 24, require buildings in such areas to be constructed on pilings to ensure structural stability.
      2. Members discussed current Massachusetts compliance pathway allowing submission of a “Notice of Non-Significance”. Sarah Alexander explained that this has led to misinterpretation of the code and inconsistent application across jurisdictions.
      3. Members discussed interaction between the building code and the Wetlands Protection Act, Notice of Non-Significance relative to wetlands “function” determinations, and whether language addresses structural safety or soil conditions. 
      4. Rebecca Haney and Eric Carlson provided additional context, noting that coastal dunes are a specific example of erodible soils already addressed in national standards. They emphasized that building failures have occurred in Massachusetts where structures were not designed with appropriate foundations in these environments.
      5. Members discussed whether the building code should be solely based on structural requirements, including the use of pilings. Members agreed that simplifying the language in this way would reduce confusion, improve consistency, and better align the code with safety objectives and established engineering practices.
   3. NFIP Certificates Proposal (Sarah Alexander, EEA)
      1. Sarah Alexander presented a proposal to require FEMA’s NFIP Elevation Certificate and Dry Floodproofing Certificate to document compliance with floodplain construction requirements.
      2. Sarah Alexander noted that code requires certification of elevation and floodproofing, but does not specify a standard format, making compliance harder to verify. She also noted that using FEMA certificates would standardize documentation, improve recordkeeping, and support participation in FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), which can lower flood insurance premiums.
      3. Members observed that many jurisdictions already use the FEMA elevation certificate despite not being required, and that a defined form would reduce ambiguity for designers and simplify enforcement.
3. Reviewed 780 CMR 51 & 2024 IRC Chapters 1, 3, and 4
   1. Chair Mansfield introduced topic of 2024 IRC Chapters 1, 3, and 4. Chair Mansfield began a review of chapters, beginning with Chapter 3 Floodplain Construction. 
   2. Eric Carlson provided overview of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) compliance and discussed areas where in his opinion the 2024 IRC may not meet FEMA minimum standards, specifically the treatment of attached garages in V-zones, where the updated IRC language could allow non-elevated structures that do not meet federal requirements.
   3. Members discussed how the provision could permit large, unenclosed or breakaway garage structures without adequate limitations, and that the removal of this provision would maintain compliance with NFIP standards and align with prior Massachusetts amendments. Members also discussed removing ambiguous language, ensuring consistent terminology, and correcting grammatical errors that could affect interpretation.
   4. Chair Mansfield provided overview of Chapter 4 Foundations. Members discussed flood-related provisions for Chapter 4. Eric Carlson discussed removing an exception that would allow below-grade crawlspaces under FEMA Technical Bulletin 11 and noted Massachusetts has historically removed this allowance due to increased flood risk.
   5. Chair Mansfield provided overview of Chapter 1. Members discussed how the code proposals, particularly the NFIP certificate requirements and DFE terminology updates, integrate into Chapter 1 and across chapters. Members discussed aligning language and requirements across chapters and improving usability of the code to reduce confusion. 
   6. The chair then called for votes to memorialize the committee’s work.  Anne Howard moved to approve Chapter One including the changes for the 2024 IRC, the carry forwards, and the three code proposal amendments, seconded by Rebecca Haney.  A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   7. The chair then requested the committee review its work on Chapter 3.  Rebecca Haney moved to approve the updates and the carry forward language in Chapter 3 and the proposed language of the three code change proposals as outlined in the forms, seconded by Anne Howard.  After clarifying that the vote included the discussed changes, a roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   8. The chair requested the committee memorialize the two changes to Chapter 4.  A motion was made by Anne Howard to adopt the changes to Chapter 4, seconded by Ross Seavey.  A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   9. The chair then requested the committee take a vote regarding two definitions for Chapter 2. It was noted that Chapter 2 was not part of the general charge of the subcommittee, but that the definitions were directly related to the assigned chapters of the subcommittee.  Rebecca Haney moved to adopt the two definitions to be added to Chapter 2, seconded by Anne Howard.  A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated 48 Hours in Advance of Meeting
   1. No matters were discussed. 
5. Adjournment – The next meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2026, at 10 AM. 
   1. Rebecca Haney motioned to adjourn, seconded by Annie Howard. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   2. The meeting adjourned at 10:53 AM. 

Items Relied Upon During Open Meeting

• Agenda
• Meeting Minutes
• Code Change Proposals
• 2024 IRC